ABSTRACT
Traditional models of group development-thepatterning of change and continuity in group structure and behavior over time-propose that groups follow a fixed sequence of stages (Bales, 1970; Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; see Mennecke, Hoffer, & Wynne, 1992, for a review). These models typically presume a stable group composition and context and ignore external causes of change. Changes in group composition or other interventions are treated as externalities that disrupt the ideal path of development (Hill & Gruner, 1973). Yet most naturally occurring groups with an extended history experience temporary or permanent changes of membership and cope (or fail to cope) with other changes in tasks, technology, and operating conditions over time. Proponents of nonsequential group development models emphasize the importance of contingencies in the environment that influence a group’s developmental path (e.g., Gersick, 1991; McGrath, 1991; Poole & Roth, 1989a, 1989b). According to these theorists, differences in group composition or task type should result in different patterns of change and continuity in group structure (patterns of interpersonal relations) and task behavior over time. Changes in these contingencies during the group’s history should evoke responses by the group. To better understand the impact of both initial conditions and changes in conditions, they call for more research exploring the possibility of multiple developmental paths (Cissna, 1984; McCollom, 1995; McGrath & O’Connor, 1996; Poole & Roth, 1989b).
